Sunday, February 5, 2017

Gold World News Flash

Gold World News Flash


"Is Trump About To Cause Another Crisis?": 2008 Could Be Eclipsed As Bank Restrictions Eliminated

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 07:20 PM PST

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

Beware of what may be coming next. We already know the establishment has a plan to blame President Trump for the next financial crisis, and now there are moves being made that will support that narrative.

After the 2008 fiasco, a spotlight on Wall Street misbehavior and some weak, but better-than-nothing regulations were put on the industry in the hopes of preventing another string of bank failures and crippling economic disasters.

But as the system teeters on edge and prepares to endure the backlash of increased rates at the Fed, Trump is also taking off the shackles that have been put in place by the Dodd-Frank Act which instituted certain protections for consumers, including a requirement that pensioners don’t have their nest egg devoured, etc.

For the tens of millions of baby boomer retirees and aging pensioners, the social security net is all they’ve got to count on, apart from a few debt-saddled kids who have hardly been able to save a dime under eight years of Obama.

The 2008 economic crisis penalized everyone with an entire cycle of wage freezes, job starvation and crushing dependence upon government programs for assistance. Wall Street, and the banker class at large were spared from blame or reparations to a society that was robbed blind. Instead, eight years of quantitative easing sent a tidal wave of easy money to the financial sector that created a gorge of asset buy-up from the top – especially in housing, where soaring rates are forcing single households to become renters instead of mortgage debt-slave owners once again.

The election of President Trump created optimism about our collective financial prospects – with seemingly tangible promises of bringing home jobs and returning to American Greatness™. But the banksters also cheered his election; stock markets shot upwards in celebration. Key positions in the White House were offered to Goldman Sachs men and others of their ilk.

Now, President Trump has issued an executive order that has Wall Street once again self-congratulating for backing the right man. The order is expected to gut protections that currently require financial products sellers

As the London Independent reports:

Donald Trump is expected to order a review of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was implemented in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to prevent a repeat of the worst financial crash since the Great Depression.

 

[…] council has the right to break up banks that it thinks could pose a systemic risk to the global financial order. It also has the ability to demand that banks hold higher reserves, or cash buffers, to minimise a squeeze. Separately, the Dodd-Frank Act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to oversee consumer financial products, such as mortgages.

 

A key part of the Act is the Volcker Rule, which restricts the way that banks are allowed to invest and places restrictions on speculative trading. It also restricts banks from engaging in so-called proprietary trading, or trading for the firm’s direct gain, instead of on behalf of a client.

 

So in effect, the rule is designed to separate the investment and commercial businesses of banks.

It seems clear enough that this move benefits many of those at the top of the pyramid, but a Bloomberg report directly quoting from senior leadership on Wall Street, and now inside the Trump Administration, makes crystal clear that the intentions are quite self-interested:

Chief executives including Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Lloyd Blankfein and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon have been pushing for changes for years, arguing that the industry has been too constrained by the system put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. After Trump focused on limiting trade and immigration during his first two weeks in office — policies opposed by many in the financial industry — the president’s stroke of a pen unleashes a process to undo many of the rules they find most irksome.

 

“We’re going to attack all aspects of Dodd-Frank,” Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “We are going to engage the House, we’re going to engage the Senate. They are equally interested in reforming some of the regulatory processes as well. We can do quite a bit without them, but the more help we get from Congress the better off we’re all going to be.”

Not necessarily the brightest news for the people.

Though it isn’t immediately obvious that this change in the rules would cause immediate trouble, there is reason for concern. If the limitations – inadequate as they were – are lifted off the banks, specifically with investing in commercial banking and with pensions, things could once again take a turn for the worse.

If the same reckless behavior is repeated, it could not only bring the system to a halt, and crash the stock market, but it could potentially wipe out the holdings of those who need it most – pensioners.

Meanwhile, defaults and the burden of a debt-supercycle are also threatening to topple the system. One way or another, the next era will have to handle enormous risk of total economic crisis.

As the Independent notes:

Does this mean we’re at risk of facing another financial crisis? Some economists have even been bold enough to say that getting rid of Dodd-Frank could indeed pave the way for another crisis.

 

What makes matters a lot worse, is that many experts believe that global financial systems and economies are more vulnerable now than they were ahead of the last financial crisis. So if we do suffer another major crash, the damage has the potential to be a lot more grave.

 

Central banks around the world have already slashed interest rates to record lows leaving them with limited ammunition to do more to stimulate economic growth. Government debt has also sky rocketed over the decade since the last crisis.

Whatever comes next, there is a toxic cycle that is waiting to crash down upon us with a tsunami of financial misfortune.

Federal Reserve policies in the wake of the last crisis set up the American people for a very bad fall. Economic vibrancy among the middle class and general population has been sucked dry, and they will be ill prepared to handle a new crunch in credit and possible hyper inflationary/deflationary crisis.

Trump’s pro-business, pro-American policies may help if they are instituted correctly, but enabling the financial sector to once again prey upon people and fuel the rise-and-collapse of a massive series of bubbles and a derivatives WMD is not a healthy option.

The stage has been set for a nightmare that we must pray never comes.

U.K.-based class action planned against worldwide gold and silver rigging

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 06:13 PM PST

9:16p ET Saturday, February 4, 2017

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

A British law firm, Leon Kaye Solicitors, with offices in London, Portugal, and Spain, is contemplating bringing a class-action lawsuit under the United Kingdom's Competition Act against financial institutions suspected or already accused of manipulating the gold and silver markets. The firm is seeking contact with investors who believe they may have been harmed by such manipulation.

To the best of GATA's knowledge, similar lawsuits have been brought so far only in the United States and Canada, and it would be a shame to give crooked gold and silver traders and bullion banks a pass in London, which remains the center of metals trading. It appears that people living outside the United Kingdom can become plaintiffs there.

With luck discovery and deposition in all these lawsuits eventually may expose and incriminate central banks in the market rigging, as they commonly intervene in the markets through intermediary financial houses.

Information about the possible class action in the U.K. is posted at the Leon Kaye Solicitors internet site here:

http://www.leonkaye.co.uk/class-actions/possible-manipulation-gold-silve...

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
CPowell@GATA.org



ADVERTISEMENT

Buy metals at GoldMoney and enjoy international storage

GoldMoney was established in 2001 by James and Geoff Turk and is safeguarding more than $1.7 billion in metals and currencies. Buy gold, silver, platinum, and palladium from GoldMoney over the Internet and store them in vaults in Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, ­taking advantage of GoldMoney's low storage rates, among the most competitive in the industry. GoldMoney also offers delivery of 100-gram and 1-kilogram gold bars and 1-kilogram silver bars. To learn more, please visit:

http://www.goldmoney.com/?gmrefcode=gata



Join GATA here:

Dollar Vigilante Internationalization and Investment Summit
Friday, February 24, 2017
Resort Mundo Imperial
Acapulco, Mexico
http://tdvinvestmentsummit.com
For a 10% percent discount, use the discount code "GATA"

Mining Investment Asia
Tuesday-Friday, March 28-31, 2017
Marina Bay Sands, Singapore
http://bit.ly/1DBH5lb

Mines and Money Asia
Wednesday-Friday, April 5-7, 2017
Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre
http://asia.minesandmoney.com/

* * *

Help keep GATA going:

GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at:

http://www.gata.org

To contribute to GATA, please visit:

http://www.gata.org/node/16

Gorsuch May Not Shift The Balance Of Power On The Supreme Court As Much As You Think

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 06:10 PM PST

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

On Tuesday, President Trump announced that he would nominate Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Gorsuch currently serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate when he was appointed to that position by President George W. Bush in 2006.  Gorsuch appears to have some strong similarities to Antonin Scalia, and many conservatives are hoping that when Gorsuch fills Scalia’s seat that it will represent a shift in the balance of power on the Supreme Court.  Because for almost a year, the court has been operating with only eight justices.  Four of them were nominated by Republican presidents and four of them were nominated by Democrats, and so many Republicans are anticipating that there will now be a Supreme Court majority for conservatives.

Unfortunately, things are not that simple, because a couple of the “conservative” justices are not actually very conservative at all.

For example, it is important to remember that Scalia was still on the court when the Supreme Court decision that forced all 50 states to legalize gay marriage was decided.  Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices in a majority opinion that Scalia harshly criticized.  So with Gorsuch on the court, that case would still have been decided the exact same way.

Sadly, even though Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, he has turned out to be quite liberal.  In the past, not nearly enough scrutiny was given to justices that were nominated by Republican presidents, and a few of them have turned out to be total disasters.

And let us also remember that Scalia was still on the court when the big Obamacare case was decided.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in a decision that was perhaps one of the most bizarre in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

For some reason, Justice Roberts was determined to preserve Obamacare, and if you read what he wrote it is some of the most twisted legal reasoning that I have ever come across.

As someone that was once part of the legal world, let me let you in on a little secret.  Most judges simply do whatever they feel like doing, and then they will try to find a way to justify their decisions.  So if you ever find yourself in court, you should pray that you will get a judge that is sympathetic to your cause.

Fortunately, Gorsuch appears to be one of the rare breed of judges that actually cares what the U.S. Constitution and our laws have to say.  In that respect, he is very much like Scalia

Gorsuch is seen by analysts as a jurist similar to Scalia, who died on Feb. 13, 2016. Scalia, praised by Gorsuch as “a lion of the law,” was known not only for his hard-line conservatism but for interpreting the U.S. Constitution based on what he considered its original meaning, and laws as written by legislators. Like Scalia, Gorsuch is known for sharp writing skills.

 

“It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives,” Gorsuch said on Tuesday at the White House event announcing the nomination in remarks that echoed Scalia’s views.

One of the most high profile cases that Gorsuch was involved with came in 2013.  That was the famous “Hobby Lobby case”, and it represented a key turning point in the fight for religious freedom.  The following comes from CNN

In 2013, he joined in an opinion by the full Court of Appeals holding that federal law prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring closely-held, for-profit secular corporations to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

 

And although a narrowly divided 5-4 Supreme Court would endorse that view (and affirm the 10th Circuit) the following year, Gorsuch wrote that he would have gone even further, and allowed not just the corporations, but the individual owners, to challenge the mandate.

Donald Trump said that he wanted a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia, but I think that he was also looking for someone that he could get through the Senate.

And considering the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2006 will make it quite difficult for Democrats to block him now.  Gorsuch has tremendous academic and professional credentials, and he will probably have a smoother road to confirmation than someone like appeals court judge William Pryor would

Trump may have favored Gorsuch for the job in hopes of a smoother confirmation process than for other potential candidates such as appeals court judge William Pryor, who has called the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.”

But Pryor is still reportedly on the short list for the next spot on the Supreme Court that opens up, and by then the rancor in the Senate may have died down.

If Gorsuch is confirmed, what will this mean for some of the most important moral issues of our time?

As for abortion, even if Gorsuch is confirmed I do not believe that the votes are there to overturn Roe v. Wade.  But if Trump is able to nominate a couple more Supreme Court justices that could change.

But even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would not suddenly make abortion illegal.  Instead, all 50 states would then be free to make their own laws regarding abortion, and a solid majority of the states would continue to keep it legal.

The analysis is similar when we look at gay marriage.  If the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states was overturned, each state would get to decide whether gay marriage should be legal or not for their own citizens.  And just like with abortion, it is likely that only a limited number of states would end up banning gay marriage.

So the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appears to be a positive step, but it does not mean that we are going to see dramatic change when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay marriage any time soon.

But at least Gorsuch can help stop the relentless march of the progressive agenda through our court system.  So in the end we may not make that much progress for right now, but at least the liberals won’t either.

The Market Wizard's Wizard - An Interview With Jack Schwager

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 05:00 PM PST

Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

Mr. Schwager is a recognized industry expert in futures and hedge funds and the author of a number of widely acclaimed financial books. He is one of the founders of FundSeeder, a platform designed to find undiscovered trading talent worldwide and connect unknown successful traders with sources of investment capital. Previously, Mr. Schwager was a partner in the Fortune Group (2001-2010), a London-based hedge fund advisory firm. His prior experience also includes 22 years as Director of Futures research for some of Wall Street’s leading firms, most recently Prudential Securities.

Mr. Schwager has written extensively on the futures industry and great traders in all financial markets. He is perhaps best known for his best-selling series of interviews with the greatest hedge fund managers of the last three decades: Market Wizards (1989, 2012), The New Market Wizards (1992), Stock Market Wizards (2001), Hedge Fund Market Wizards (2012), and The Little Book of Market Wizards (2014). His other books include Market Sense and Nonsense (2012), a compendium of investment misconceptions, and the three-volume series, Schwager on Futures, consisting of Fundamental Analysis (1995), Technical Analysis (1996), and Managed Trading (1996). He is also the author of Getting Started in Technical Analysis (1999), part of John Wiley’s popular Getting Started series.

E Tavares: Jack it is a pleasure and an honor to be speaking with you today. You are a reference, even sort of like a guru for us in the futures / commodities industry. Throughout your work – and we read much of it – you seem to have a slight preference for trading futures over stocks and bonds. Is that right, and if so why?

J Schwager: That’s absolutely true. First of all, I got into the industry as a commodities analyst. There were no financial futures, which now dominate the markets, in those days. Two years as an analyst then 22 years as director of futures research for several firms, with several years designing trading systems along the way. Much of that continues in different shapes and forms, so the bulk of my professional career has been in futures. That’s the primary reason for me.

The stock trading that I do has been sporadic. It’s very different from my futures trading, which basically consists of trades with stops to control risk. In stocks I will be much more contrarian, looking to buy things when they have been out of favor, at low or pummeled prices. Not because I know much about the underlying fundamentals, just that it’s a type of business where I believe the long-term downside is very limited irrespective of the technical/price chart patterns, and there is much more upside than downside.

For example, in late 2008 I had no idea when the whole collapse in the equity markets would end but it seemed to be the classic panic. So I looked to buy very long-term out of the money LEAPS (call options) in things that were totally crushed, like FXI (China ETF) or XME (Metals & Mining ETF). They were trading so low that it was unlikely they would lose much more value from there. I did not have any stops even if the whole thing went to zero so it is quite a different way of trading from futures.

In fact it’s a complete 180 degrees different. For me futures is more like trading and stocks is more contrarian, long-term investing…

ET: … like value investing?

JS: Sort of, although I don’t do all the related fundamental work. That’s not my forte. But I look at things like prices hitting fifteen, twenty years lows, it’s a pure panic, commodities will not go out of favor, China and India will continue to grow, and so forth. So it makes sense to buy now and put it away for a few years. And if it goes to zero it goes to zero.

If XME goes from 50 to 12, it can go anywhere but I figure that at 12 it probably will not go much lower, but not because I have done any fundamental work.

ET: You just published a new edition of A Complete Guide to the Futures Market, which we can’t recommend enough. The first edition came out in 1984 and was already considered to be a seminal book on the subject. What prompted you to write a second edition more than thirty years later? Is it because the markets have fundamentally changed and as such the materials needed an update?

JS: No, the catalyst was the publisher! They bugged me throughout the 1990s to do an update and I finally balked once they threatened to get somebody else to do it. Once I got started I ended up turning it into three volumes and 1800 pages.

Then they wanted another update but just in a single volume. I finally agreed but at that point started working with a co-author that I respect a great deal, and just went over his revisions. The original 1984 book was still relevant; in fact without wanting to sound immodest it was very good. I thought I did a good job the first time around. However, today nobody is going to read a book that is over 30 years old. I thought it was a shame to let it go by the wayside when ninety percent of it was still pertinent and the rest could be easily updated.

There were no real meaningful changes to the first edition other than market updates, expansions in some topics and contractions in others. There were no analytical approaches that I thought were wrong now. Actually, hardly anything of substance needed to change.

So the book was still pertinent, it just needed to be revised and updated and a new edition was necessary to bring it to the attention of a new readership.

ET: Picking up on the analytics point, markets do evolve over time right? As such systems need to adapt. Perhaps a good example might be the famed Turtles system, which supposedly produced many millionaires almost a generation ago, but seems to be much less applicable today. Do these market changes prompt you to revise your techniques from time to time?

JS: That’s absolutely true but in the original book, while I did not cover the Turtle system per se, I did talk about broader trend following systems which are still applicable today. Back in the 1970s and 1980s these systems used to work extremely well but as more and more people started to use them they lost their efficacy, like anything else.

However, my approach in the whole book was not to say “this works absolutely”. Instead, I explained why a system worked. If you are going to do systems development you need to strictly avoid hindsight otherwise the results will be meaningless. All of that is still pertinent today. The systems I presented then worked, but I chose them primarily for illustration purposes.

When you get down to the particulars, like the exact signals, you are quite right – these tend to change over time. You have to be willing to adapt as a result. What doesn’t change is the appropriate methodology for developing, testing and implementing systems. What also remains true is the types of inputs that you might use. Yes, markets change but the broad principles and methodologies to me did not seem like they needed a lot of change.

That’s on the technical side. It’s really the fundamental approaches that changed the most because markets tend to go through these structural changes and such fundamental models can quickly lose their efficacy.

ET: Related to that, perhaps as an effort to keep traders aligned with the evolution of the market one of the sections of your book covers the development of systems for futures trading, an area that attracts a lot of interest these days, since most people now have access to enough computing power and market data to do all sorts of analyses.

However, when retail traders go into the market they are up against hyper sophisticated funds which most likely have examined all profitable combinations ahead of everyone else. Some can even execute trades much faster. So how can those retail traders have any chance of competing successfully in the market, meaning being consistently profitable over time? Are there areas like picking longer timeframes, higher risk tolerance and so forth that can give them an edge over the big players?

JS: You are probably talking about a sophisticated retail trader, someone who has experience and know what they are doing, meaning having an edge and a methodology with good risk management. In other words, someone who has a reason to be trading which in my opinion excludes the majority of people, who don’t have any of that. They are better off not trading at all.

In that sense, how does such a trader compete against the super firms with not only tremendous computing power but also teams of PhDs? You can’t beat the likes of Renaissance and DE Shaw at their own game. They are using super sophisticated and effective quant strategies. You can’t do it that way.

But the retail trader may have an approach that works. There are so many different possibilities and combinations that people can still come up with something that works. This is very possible although much more difficult compared to the 1980s for instance, let alone the 1970s.

The other distinction I would make is between systematic and discretionary trading. It is probably more difficult for a retail trader to excel using a systematic approach but I think a large percentage of them would fall under the category of discretionary. That’s where I think there still is quite a bit of room to be profitable with reasonable risk control.

Let’s say that a trader is making discretionary decisions based on charts. You can program some patterns, like a breakout or even a more complicated head & shoulders formation, test a mechanical approach based on that and you will probably come up with something that is not that great. However, the human mind is actually extremely good at finding patterns, to the point where certain people who have a particular skill in noticing them – especially at the subconscious level through intuition – are able to use them as a signal that would otherwise be missed in a pure mechanical system.

In that sense, as an example, it’s not that the market is forming a flag pattern, but rather that it is forming that pattern in a broader context with some other chart features that improves your edge. Then you go in with a stop to control your risk, and you can very much compete against the big funds with that approach.

Also, the retail trader has one big advantage over the big funds and that is size. It is a lot easier to trade and put in stops when you are trading small size as opposed to when you are trading billions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

ET: What about timeframes? It seems longer is better for the smaller investor.

JS: Not necessarily. That depends on the individual methodology of each trader. However, if you are thinking in terms of conventional things like trend following, then you are correct.

I think I had in the original edition of the book, but is certainly there in the current edition, the concept that longer trends are more reliable. In other words, longer term crossovers perform better than shorter term ones. And there’s a very good reason for that: they are very difficult to trade. Markets tend to punish traders who employ easier approaches and reward those willing to suffer some pain.

The idea is that yes, when you use a long term approach it is true that you are getting in much later on a trend and you also surrender a much larger portion of open profits when you are right - and not many people are willing to go there since both are painful things. However, it is also true that shorter term systems give you so many back and forth whipsaws – and you can test this empirically over time like I did – that on balance you are worse off. Those whipsaws more than offset the larger gains from getting in earlier and the smaller surrender of profits from getting out earlier.

In that sense trading over a longer horizon has more efficacy, but emotionally it is a very difficult thing to do.

ET: In the book you describe in detail various trading approaches, including technical and fundamental. And while expressing some preference for the former you suggest that it is up to traders to find what works for them. This is a crucial point that is often forgotten.

JS: When I give talks about trading and lessons from Market Wizards one of the foremost points I make, maybe the first point about what you should do, is the need to find an approach that works for you. That’s going to be different for everybody. So many people don’t realize that. They try to chase the best methodology or learn from somebody else.

It’s like you can have the most expensive suit but if it’s from someone who is not your size you will not look good in it. It’s much better to have a cheaper suit that fits you. It’s the same thing with trading. You can’t make someone else’s trading methodology work for you. Everybody has their own skills, preferences, biases, emotional strengths and weaknesses and all those traits suggest having a different approach for each person.

This is matter of trial and error and being conscious of what seems to work, what you are comfortable with, what you believe and so forth. Some people should use just technical, other just fundamentals and others a combination of the two. I can’t really tell anybody what would work for them - that's a question only they can answer.

ET: What really moves the markets in your opinion? Some people say it’s just a random walk, a coin flip, and so impossible to make money since it is very hard to figure out if the next flip will be heads or tails. Others say there is a hidden structure, at least during certain time periods, and with enough education and determination you might be able to figure it out. Who is right?

JS: If the random walkers are correct, all market participants are wasting their time because you can only make money if you are lucky. It also means that I wrote four Market Wizard books about a bunch of very lucky people. There are many reasons as to why there is something else at play. In fact, I wrote a whole chapter on this in another book, Market Sense and Nonsense, debunking the random walk theory.

Now, the markets behave like they are random or have a lot of randomness to them. That part is true. But what is generally wrong about the random walk theory is that, first of all, the idea that everything is discounted and fully reflected in the price at all times, and therefore nobody can make money, is demonstrably false.

I’ll give you a recent example, in addition to the many I outlined in that chapter. It’s one of my favorites and it’s from a recent talk by Richard Thaler, the renowned behavioral economist. There is a closed end fund with the ticker CUBA (like the Caribbean island), which like most closed end funds usually trades at a 15-20% discount to the value of the basket of securities that compose it. And then in one day all of the sudden it skyrocketed up to a 70% PREMIUM. What could have happened?

Well, President Obama had just given a speech that he would normalize relations with Cuba. Now, CUBA did not hold any Cuban securities for two reasons: 1) there were no Cuban companies to invest in; and 2) even if there were it would have been illegal to do so. It did hold some South American companies, but nothing directly in Cuba!

So you had this huge change in one day in the price of the fund when none of its securities were directly affected by the catalyst causing the price surge. And of course a couple of days later the price went back to the prior levels.

There are so many other examples. Take the internet bubble. You have this sixfold share price rise in one and a half years then back to the original prices in one and half years. But there were no major news developments that satisfactorily explained the moves in either direction. During the advance, there was a market euphoria and a buying-at-any-price mentality because people were afraid of missing the bull market. Then the music stopped and everybody is looking for a chair and there are no more chairs around. Once the buying fever broke, prices collapsed because the gains were never justified in the first place.

And the random walk theory is wrong because it misses a tremendously essential component of the markets and that is human emotion. It does not play a major role all the time, but when it does it can cause massive dislocations.

However, it doesn’t mean it’s simple. The irony is that while I believe the efficient market hypothesis is wrong, it is still very difficult to beat the markets. In early 1999 you could have said that the market was experiencing a bubble and that one should go short, and you would have been absolutely right. But when the market finally topped out in March 2000, you could have gone bust by then. So you can have markets be non-random and yet be very difficult to beat. And that is what fools many people into believing that they are random.

It’s also a fault in logic. The converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. You can say that because markets are random they are difficult to beat. However, the converse - markets are difficult to beat and therefore the markets are random - is a flaw in logic. It is true that all polar bears are white mammals, but not all white mammals are polar bears.

ET: Over the years you have interviewed the best in the business, the Market Wizards. These guys are truly amazing but there is one question that has always intrigued us, appreciating how hard it is to make it in the markets, as you just described. How can you truly distinguish luck from excellence, since both play such a significant role in speculation?

For example, statistically speaking it is very unlikely to have twenty flips that all come out heads, but with enough people flipping coins there will be a very small group who will do it. Without this perspective you could get the erroneous idea that they really know how to produce heads. How can you distinguish those lucky flippers from investors who happened to be profita

Learning to Prosper in Silver - Jeff Nielson

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 04:00 PM PST

Sprott Money

Gerald Celente - Where’s Gold going? Play the Trump Card!

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 03:00 PM PST

There is blood on the streets and masked men running amok with baseball bats in Berkeley. We are in the beginning of a serious and dangerous revolt. Once they get rid of cash and all transactions are done by debit or credit cards.. You won't be able to buy anything without your government...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

NIST whistleblower Peter Ketcham speaks out on 9/11!!

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 02:00 PM PST

"Truth is where our healing lies." NIST Employee Speaks Out on WTC-7 Cover-up A former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has stepped forward and criticized the government agency for ignoring the scientific errors found in its report on the collapse of World Trade...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Can Trump Stop The Global Economic Collapse ?

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 11:30 AM PST

Can the Global Economic Collapse be Stopped? Federal reserve is a private company, they print money, charge interest, are able to trade any stock / bond / commodity, completely control the markets and our economy. A bunch of greedy, satan worshiper, evil people. hello fellow...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

In The News Today

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 11:04 AM PST

Jim Sinclair's Commentary Are these people members of the Aluminum Foil Hat Club? Apocalypse Island: Tech Billionaires Are Building Boltholes In New Zealand Because They Now Fear Social Collapse Or Nuclear War. So What Do They Know That We Don’t?February 4, 2017 You're all set — your bags were packed long ago, there's a dozen... Read more »

The post In The News Today appeared first on Jim Sinclair's Mineset.

XAU/Gold Ratio : The Deep Dive

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 04:53 AM PST

Still waiting patiently for another possible nibble at some Miner positions. In the meantime, what is the XAU:Gold ratio and why is it important? The Ratio clearly shows you that If you are going to invest or trade Gold/Silver Mining stocks you had best have some kind of time horizon to harvest profits. Why? The Ratio peaked in favor of the XAU all the way back in 1983. Yes the miners have underperformed Gold as a long term investment over that long period of time.

Breaking News And Best Of The Web

Posted: 04 Feb 2017 01:37 AM PST

Fed leaves rates unchanged, Yellen says optimistic things. US stocks jump after good jobs data, gold and silver up on weakening dollar. President Trump bans immigration from several countries, fires acting attorney general for refusing to enforce ban, names supreme court nominee. Marine Le Pen catches another break.   Best Of The Web Great expectations […]

The post Breaking News And Best Of The Web appeared first on DollarCollapse.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment